Commissioners debate whether in-service waivers should credit agencies or individual officers

Commissioners on the state POST Commission debated whether the standard phrasing in in-service waiver motions — that an action "keeps the agency compliant and not the officer" — should count as a strike against an individual officer for purposes of disciplinary escalation and salary supplement eligibility.

Commissioner Green framed the question around statutory intent and practical effects, asking whether a waiver that leaves an agency technically compliant but the officer out of compliance should be treated as a year toward disciplinary thresholds. Commissioners worried waiving an officer’s compliance could short-circuit later disciplinary action if the waived year were counted as a "strike." Commissioner Wilbur described prior cases in which multiple arrests or administrative issues suggested a record that might warrant a disciplinary hearing if noncompliance recurred.

Staff told commissioners the existing statute that ties eligibility for salary supplement payments to agency compliance influenced the language used in motions, and that the commission has limited regulatory authority over entire agencies. Commissioners discussed options for how agendas should present waivers going forward, including flagging the number of prior noncompliance years on the agenda so members know whether a waiver would push an officer toward an informal hearing.

The group agreed not to change the short-form motion language on the floor and to continue approving waivers when presented, but commissioners requested clearer staff notation on agendas indicating whether a waived year will count as a noncompliance 'strike' for the officer. Commissioners also asked staff to bring back clarifying language or guidance about whether waived years should be treated as credit toward or exemption from disciplinary thresholds.

Why it matters: Whether a waived year counts as a noncompliance year affects an officer’s record, potential disciplinary escalation (informal hearing triggers), and supplemental pay eligibility for entire departments. Commissioners said clearer agenda notation and staff guidance would help members make informed votes when waiver requests involve officers with prior noncompliance history.

What’s next: Staff will continue processing waiver approvals as presented and will add clearer notes to agendas about prior noncompliance years; commissioners asked staff to propose clarifying guidance for future meetings.